Preview (12 of 37 pages)

Preview Extract

This document contains Chapters 4 to 7 CHAPTER 4 - CRITICAL THINKING APPLICATIONS Critical Thinking Application 4-A Can PAS Defend Its Test in Court? Based on your understanding of the law and the job analysis results, can the company use this test to screen applicants? The best answer we can provide is that the test can "probably" be defended. PAS used a highly detailed job analysis method that incorporated ADA language regarding "essential functions." However, see comments below regarding ADA litigation. Are there specific test items that are (or may be) legally problematic? Some of the test items are legally problematic. Items 36, 37 and 46 pertain to political attitudes. The use of such questions are illegal in some jurisdictions. Some states have laws that prohibit political questions of any kind (e.g., California). Items 5, 10, 16, 37 and 38 ask questions about bias against others and alcohol consumption, both of which are permitted so long as the applicant’s own membership in a protected group is not the criteria used in selection. There are possible ADA implications for questions related to past drug or alcohol abuse. What (if any) other information do you need about the job analysis, the test, or anything else to be able to take a definitive position on whether the company should use the test? Information about the job analysis: One key question that should be asked in the extent to which respondents gave varied answers to the items (we only know that 75 % (or more) of supervisors rated each item as "essential." More data on the variability in these ratings as a consequence of real job differences among security guard positions would help. In general, litigation under the ADA has concerned the particular disabilities of a claimant and the particular characteristics of a job. For example, if the job called for armed security guards, there would almost certainly be no problem with the use of the test even though questions are related to possible mental disabilities such as depression. However, for an unarmed security guard job, the rejection of an applicant based on test performance who has some history of or current state of mental disability (e.g., clinical depression) could be problematic. Another key question would be whether there was any attempt to link specific job analysis items with particular test items and the scoring procedure. The use of "experts" who establish this linkage would enhance the defensibility of the test. Although the linkage could be made after a complaint was filed, the more documentation available relating JA data with specific test scores the better. Information about the test: The scoring key for the test, including how each of the items is scored and how each is weighted in the determination of suitability. In line with the example above, there is potential for legal difficulties if the clinically depressed applicant was rendered unsuitable and his/her "True" responses to "I get depressed often" and "Sometimes I am not in the mood to see anyone" contributed to the "unsuitability" assessment. Do you regard any of these questions as an invasion of privacy? If so, which items? Students do not in general find any of the test questions an "invasion of their privacy." However, on average in one survey, 24% of students indicated that some of the items were an invasion of privacy and 54% viewed some of the items as "not job related." Critical Thinking Application 4-B What to Do with Job Diagnostic Survey Results This exercise provides an opportunity for students to complete the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), the most heavily researched job design instrument. The JDS is a useful instrument for job redesign but research has also exposed some problems. The JDS is based on the Job Characteristics Model which emphasizes enhancing the intrinsic aspects of an employee’s work to increase satisfaction and performance. The model states that workers will be more motivated and satisfied, produce better quality work, and have less absenteeism and turnover to the extent that they experience three psychological states. These states are (1) the belief that their work is meaningful, (2) that they have responsibility for the outcomes of their work, and (3) that they receive feedback on the results of their work. These states are related to five job design characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback) that are measured on the JDS. All five of the Job Diagnostic Survey characteristics are correlated with job satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, job performance. Thus, high scores on a characteristic should predict higher levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of job performance. The average correlation of the five JDS characteristics with job satisfaction was .56 and the average correlation with job performance was .22. Autonomy had the highest correlation with job satisfaction among the JDS characteristics. Jobs with high motivating potential are generally high on all five job characteristics but Autonomy and Feedback are relatively more important. There has been criticism of the JDS and the Job Characteristics Model. A new and superior job design instrument is the "Work Design Questionnaire" which expands knowledge of work design (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). 1. Conduct research on the Job Diagnostic Survey and the Job Characteristics Model and, after receiving information on how to interpret your score, make some predictions about the implications of your score for important work outcomes. All five of the Job Diagnostic Survey characteristics are correlated with job satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, job performance. Thus, high scores on a characteristic should predict higher levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of job performance. The average correlation of the five JDS characteristics with job satisfaction was .56 and the average correlation with job performance was .22. Autonomy had the highest correlation with job satisfaction among the JDS characteristics. Jobs with high motivating potential are generally high on all five job characteristics but Autonomy and Feedback are relatively more important. Play the role of an HRM consultant. Explain how you would use the JDS results to facilitate changes in the design of work. What steps would you take to insure you are receiving accurate information? The average scores on JDS dimensions should indicate stronger or weaker needs for intervention. Significantly lower scores on any dimension would be a good place to start. If you were assigned to consider redesigning jobs within your organization, would you use the JDS to gather data or use some other approach to job analysis? Explain your answer. The JDS is a useful instrument for job redesign but research has also exposed some problems. The JDS is based on the Job Characteristics Model which emphasizes enhancing the intrinsic aspects of an employee’s work to increase satisfaction and performance. The model states that workers will be more motivated and satisfied, produce better quality work, and have less absenteeism and turnover to the extent that they experience three psychological states. These states are (1) the belief that their work is meaningful, (2) that they have responsibility for the outcomes of their work, and (3) that they receive feedback on the results of their work. These states are related to five job design characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback) that are measured on the JDS. A new and superior job design instrument is the "Work Design Questionnaire" which expands knowledge of work design (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Key References related to Job Design: Hackman, J. R., and Oldham , G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading , MA : Addison-Wesley. Hackman, R. and Oldham , G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Morgeson F. P. & Humphrey S. E. (2006) The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. Humphrey S.E., Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356. Presented below are JDS norms for college undergraduate students (MEAN age= 23) who were completing the JDS based on their current jobs and over 10,000 full-time employees from over 100 organizations and over 1000 jobs. Data were aggregated from the original norms compiled by Oldham, Hackman and Stepina (1979). The first mean is the undergraduate student mean and the second mean is from the full-time employees. I. JOB CHARACTERISTICS A. Skill variety (MEANS=3.4/4.8). B. Task Identity (MEANS=3.6/4.7). C. Task significance (MEANS=3.6/4.7). D. Autonomy. (MEANS=3.6/4.7). E. Feedback from the job itself (MEANS=4.2/4.9). F. Feedback from agents (MEANS=4.0/4.3). G. Dealing with others (MEANS=5.3/5.7). II. EXPERIENCED PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES A. Experienced responsibility for the work (MEANS=3.9/5.3). B. Experienced responsibility for the work outcomes (MEANS=4.9/5.4). C. Knowledge of results (MEANS=4.1/5.1). III. AFFECTIVE OUTCOMES A. General satisfaction. (MEANS=3.8/4.8). B. Internal work motivation. (MEANS=3.9/5.7). C. Growth satisfaction (MEANS=3.8/4.8). IV. CONTEXT SATISFACTIONS A. Satisfaction with job security (MEANS=3.9/4.9). B. Satisfaction with compensation (MEANS=3.9/4.1). C. Satisfaction with co-workers (MEANS=5.0/5.5). D. Satisfaction with supervision (MEANS=4.8/5.0). V. INDIVIDUAL GROWTH NEED STRENGTH A. Combined growth need strength score (MEANS= 3.9/5.1). VI. MOTIVATING POTENTIAL SCORE (MPS) (MEANS= 104/ 134) A job high on MPS must be high on at least one of the three job characteristics that foster “meaningfulness” and high on both Autonomy and Feedback. A low score on either Autonomy or Feedback will reduce MPS substantially. For internal motivation to be high, Autonomy and Feedback on the job must be high. It is possible to obtain an MPS of 7 and scores of 343 have been documented (e.g., managerial consultant)! Point out that a high MPS merely creates conditions for internal motivation. High MPS does not guarantee high internal motivation. CHAPTER 5 - CRITICAL THINKING APPLICATIONS Critical Thinking Application 5-A Freeman et al. v. the New Oxford Fire Department * Contributed by Linsey C. Willis To come Critical Thinking Application 5-B Hi, I'm in Bangalore (but I can't say so) What do you see as the major advantages and disadvantages of contracting with an overseas customer call center? The major advantage in using offshore call centers is the cost of labor. Bangalore customer service reps earn one-tenth that of U.S. based customer service reps ($3,500 for Bangalore, $29,040 median earnings for U.S.). Allows workers to focus on value adding services. Round the clock support for customers. The major disadvantage is lack of control over procedures. Customers may feel that customer service is a low priority since it has outsourced the service to a foreign market. Government intervention, such as higher taxes, to firms that outsource overseas. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of allowing this outsourced organization to lie to your customers about whom they are and where they are? Advantages: customers are put at ease Disadvantages: deceiving your customers, image can be hurt if becomes public. Is it unethical to contract with such an organization? A majority of students do regard such behavior as “unethical.” Because of the huge cost differential, most companies will probably take the risk of a fight over the “ethics” involved in using “fake” Americans. Since the rules governing the work would come from the country in which the offshore facility is located, the ramifications regarding the ethics would not necessarily be an American issue. The issue then becomes one of image, i.e. Most Admired Companies, and possible losses of market share if adverse image is the result. Of course, companies could opt to use Bangalore representatives and stipulate that they tell the truth about their location, etc. What if Customer Asset presented data showing American callers are more satisfied with the call service they receive from the “fake” Americans than from call center associates who admit they are Indians sitting in India? A majority of students do not change their views regarding the use of “fake” Americans; in effect, the “end” does not justify the “means.” Would you be more accepting of this practice if data showed customers feel more secure about transactions if they feel they are interacting with an American? While understanding the potential customer preference for interacting with individuals they perceive as American, it's essential to approach this practice with caution. Prioritizing perceived nationality over qualifications and skills may inadvertently perpetuate biases and discrimination in hiring practices. It's crucial to balance customer preferences with ethical considerations regarding equality, diversity, and inclusion. Additionally, fostering a diverse workforce can bring various perspectives and talents to the table, ultimately benefiting the organization and its customers in the long term. Therefore, while customer preferences are important, it's essential to critically evaluate practices to ensure they align with ethical principles and promote inclusivity. Do a Net search to determine what the salary would be of a customer service representative working in the U.S. A search on the O*Net Online for “43-4051.00 - Customer Service Representatives” yielded the following:
Median wages (2007) $13.96 hourly, $29,040 annual
Employment (2006) 2,202,000 employees
Projected growth (2006-2016) Much faster than average (21% or higher)
Projected need (2006-2016) 1,158,000 additional employees
Critical Thinking Application 5-C Is Wal-Mart Guilty of Gender Discrimination? Conduct research on the Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart case and determine the present status. What arguments and/or evidence did Wal-Mart present to argue against the gender discrimination claims? Based on what you have reviewed, was Wal-Mart guilty of gender discrimination as alleged? Try to take a definitive position and then justify that position with specific evidence or arguments. If you are unsure, what specific information do you need to be able to render a verdict in this case? Setting aside the alleged illegalities, what specific HR practices could Wal-Mart improve to make their HR more effective and (perhaps) to lower the likelihood of such Title VII lawsuits in the future? Presented below are major findings of the case (Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C 01-02252 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2004). www.library.findlaw.com for current information. RESEARCH/ STATUS OF THE CASE AS OF APRIL 2009: February 13, 2009: the Ninth Circuit granted Wal-Mart’s request for “en banc” (“En banc" review occurs if the majority of the active judges vote for it) to review of the district court’s order certifying a class of all female employees who worked at Wal-Mart any time since December 26, 1998. Oral argument took place on March 24, 2009 before an en banc panel of 11 Ninth Circuit judges. It may take several months for the en banc panel to issue an opinion. The order taking the case en banc means that the December 11, 2007 order by the Ninth Circuit is no longer good law. If the en banc panel agrees with the prior Ninth Circuit orders and affirms class certification, Wal-Mart may appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Source: http://www.walmartclass.com/walmartclass_casedevelopments.html February 6, 2007: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that several current and former Wal-Mart employees may represent all female employees who worked at Wal-Mart any time since December 26, 1998 in a nationwide sex discrimination lawsuit. Source: http://www.walmartclass.com/walmartclass_casedevelopments.html June 21, 2004: A federal district court judged certified a nationwide class of approximately 1.6 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart who claim sex discrimination in promotions and pay at Wal-Mart stores around the country. CASE OVERVIEW: The Court’s Opinion: The major issues on which the court focused in its 84-page opinion were “commonality” and “manageability,” necessary conditions for class certification. Commonality centers on the relationship of common facts and legal issues among class members. Manageability concerns whether class treatment would be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy. Wal-Mart argued that the class should be de-certified because the class lacked both commonality and manageability. The District Court rejected the Wal-Mart arguments. The court found that Wal-Mart store managers have “substantial discretion” in making promotion and salary decisions for hourly employees, leading the court to conclude that such decisions are characterized by “excessive subjectivity.” For example, while the court concluded that the company has minimal requirements for promotion (e.g., employee has a current “above average” evaluation, is not in a “high shrink” department or store and is willing to relocate), beyond that, it found that selection for management training is the product of a “tap on the shoulder” process. Similarly, the court concluded that, in making salary decisions, store managers were not constrained by objective criteria or oversight. Moreover, the court referred to evidence that Wal-Mart did not post job vacancies for many management positions, and employees who wished to apply for a store manager position needed the permission of the district manager. These findings were problematic in the Court’s opinion. The court noted that case law has “long recognized that the deliberate and routine use of excessive subjectivity is an ‘employment practice' that is susceptible to being infected by discriminatory animus.” Rejecting Wal-Mart's argument against commonality that pay and promotion decisions are made locally by individual store managers, the court instead found a nexus between the subjective decision-making and discrimination in the evidence of gender stereotyping and corporate culture at Wal-Mart stores nationwide. The court also found that Wal-Mart actively fosters a strong and distinctive, centrally-controlled, corporate culture. According to the “Wal-Mart Way,” for example, new employees go through the same orientation process, employees attend daily meetings where managers discuss company culture and employees do the Wal-Mart cheer, and store managers are provided with corporate culture lessons and training materials to present at weekly meetings. Plaintiff's sociology expert, Dr. William T. Bielby, opined that, through the company's efforts, “employees achieve a common understanding of the company's way of conducting business.” The court concluded that this strongly imbued culture supported a finding of commonality among class members. Dr. Bielby also opined that managerial decision-making based on subjective factors and with substantial discretion allows managers to perpetuate stereotypes. He concluded that promotion and pay decisions “are likely to be biased unless they are assessed in a systematic and valid manner, with clear criteria and careful attention to the integrity of the decision-making process.” For example, although Wal-Mart has diversity and EEO policies, he opined that the company has neither undertaken a systematic assessment to identify possible barriers to women's advancement nor performed any surveys addressing diversity or gender issues. Recognizing that the expert's opinions “have a built-in degree of conjecture,” the court nonetheless concluded that there was sufficient scientific foundation for the opinions, and ultimately their validity would be a question for the jury. The Plaintiffs Argument: The plaintiffs presented three types of evidence: facts and expert opinions supporting the existence of company-wide policies and practices that discriminated against women Dr. James Drogan, the plaintiffs' statistical expert, opined that female employees are paid less than males in every region; pay disparities exist in most job categories; the salary gap between men and women widens over time; women take longer to enter into management positions; and the higher up the corporate ladder, the lower the percentage of women. expert statistical evidence of class-wide gender disparities attributable to discrimination The statistical data presented in the case itself were analyzed by Dr. Drogan. His major additional findings: Women's total earnings are between 5% and 15% less than total earnings of similarly situated men; Roughly 65% of hourly employees are women, but women comprise only 33% of management employees. On average, women take 4.38 years from date of hire to be promoted to assistant manager, while men take 2.86 years. Women take 10.12 years to reach the store manager level, compared with 8.64 years for men. The court also allowed evidence of “external benchmarking,” i.e., statistical comparisons to other large retailers. This expert claimed that there is a shortfall of women in managerial positions at 79.5% of Wal-Mart stores, making it “impossible for the pattern to be geographically localized.” He further claimed that, at the comparison retailers, females held 56.5% of the managerial positions, whereas women held only 34.5% of the managerial positions at Wal-Mart — a significant differential of 47 standard deviations. Anecdotal evidence of discrimination. The plaintiffs also submitted declarations from employees around the country. For example, one declarant attested that she was told: “Men are here to make a career and women aren't. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money.” Another declarant who sought a transfer to the hardware department claimed that she was told: “We need you in toys … you're a girl, why do you want to be in hardware?” A third alleged that her store manager gave the sporting goods manager position to a male because she needed “a man in the job.” Walmart’s Argument: The Wal-Mart expert, Dr. Joan Haworth, attacked the statistical analysis from the plaintiffs. Among the criticisms of Dr. Drogan’s analyses were: the failure to utilize actual applicant flow data when looking at promotions; the exclusion of variables such as seniority, recent promotion or demotion, and store size in arriving at conclusions regarding pay; and aggregating data to the regional level rather than the store or sub-store level. The District Court found as sufficient, for this stage of the litigation, plaintiffs' expert's opinions that gender is a statistically significant variable in accounting for salary differentials between men and women, and that there was a shortfall of women promoted to in-store management during the relevant period. Wal-Mart also argued that the number of potential class members alone made this case impossible to manage. The court rejected this argument, noting that Title VII “contains no special exception for large employers,” and that insulating large companies from such actions would “seriously undermine” the purpose of Title VII. The court held that Wal-Mart could not try each class member's individual claim, nor was it entitled to individual store-by-store trials. Instead, Wal-Mart could introduce evidence at trial to rebut plaintiffs' evidence of centralized, nationwide policies regarding corporate culture, subjective personnel policies or gender stereotyping. Regarding the manageability of the damages phase, the court agreed in part with Wal-Mart's arguments. While the company's PeopleSoft database — which the court characterized as extraordinarily sophisticated — eliminated the need for individualized hearings on the qualifications component of determining eligibility for sharing in a backpay award for discriminatory failures to promote, the database could not determine employees' interest in promotions. Accordingly, the court limited the sharing of any backpay remedy to those who could present objective evidence of application or interest in a promotion. Rather than require evidence of actual lost pay, the court approved the use of a formula to calculate a lump sum backpay award which, while imprecise, was better than no remedy at all, according to the court. The court also certified the entire class with regard to an Equal Pay Act remedy. BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED, WAS WAL-MART GUILTY OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION AS ALLEGED? Important issue #1: The role of subjective decision-making. Wal-Mart’s arguments: A key point in the plaintiffs’ case was that highly subjective decision-making processes in pay and promotion decisions were susceptible to discrimination. Indeed, Wal-Mart’s petition to appeal the class certification asserts that “District Courts within the Ninth Circuit are divided” with regard to such decision-making processes and offers another case, where certification of the class was denied. In that decision, the high degree of subjectivity was viewed by the court as a criticism, but not an actual policy that would make it amenable to meeting the notion of commonality. Thus, Wal-Mart’s petition for review suggests that the “divergence of opinion” regarding the role of highly subjective decision-making in the courts means that the district court’s opinion is worthy of review. Plaintiffs’ response: The plaintiffs response is that this district court has argued elsewhere that local decision-making does not defeat an argument of commonality. Moreover, the plaintiffs point out that Wal-Mart has a strong degree of centralization, which in turn creates a uniformity of policies and practices. The subjectivity is merely one of part of the argument, according to the plaintiffs. The common practice needed for class certification is a combination of uniformity of practices combined with subjectivity of decision-making. Important Issue #2: The prevalence of statistical evidence Wal-marts Argument: Plaintiffs’ expert analyzed pay differences at the regional level ( 41 regions). Dr. Drogan found that women earned less, after factoring in seniority, performance, and other variables). The defendants’ expert analyzed pay differences at the store sub-unit level ( 7,500 sub-unitss) and found that there were few instances of differences in pay as a function of pay. Wal-Mart’s argument is that other district courts have noted that focusing on aggregated analysis numbers (e.g., regional level) masks differences from district to district and from supervisor to supervisor. Plaintiffs’ response. The plaintiffs cite a different case in the ninth circuit, which they assert addressed aggregated statistical data. I found another case, in a different area of the country, where the district court did accept (for class certification purposes) aggregated analyses (e.g., Warren v. Xerox, 2004) by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also contend that in a class certification situation, the court’s role is not to make decisions as to which expert’s evidence is correct; rather, that the purpose is to determine whether the plaintiff’s evidence is “sufficient.” Finally, the plaintiffs noted that Wal-Mart actually analyzed pay differences at the store sub-unit, which they contend resulted in very small sample sizes, making it difficult to find statistical significance (I could not locate the typical sample sizes here, but if true, this could make it difficult to find statistical significance). In my opinion, these two issues (i.e., subjectivity of decisions and aggregation of statistics) have been critical turning points in court decisions involving class certification. IF YOU ARE UNSURE, WHAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO RENDER A VERDICT IN THIS CASE? The accuracy and validity of the statistical evidence is obviously critical. As of this IM preparation, there are no additional reports from the experts to either support or refute the plaintiffs’ statistical data. SETTING ASIDE THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITIES, WHAT SPECIFIC HR PRACTICES COULD WAL-MART IMPROVE TO MAKE THEIR HR MORE EFFECTIVE AND (PERHAPS) TO LOWER THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH TITLE VII LAWSUITS IN THE FUTURE? There can be no question that the subjectivity in the Wal-Mart process undermined its validity. There are clearly more valid methods for selecting managers than the programs described by Wal-Mart. We’ll discuss these options in Chapter 6. Also, there is a need for more uniformity and objectivity in the “job posting” process so that Wal-Mart can establish that there was equal opportunity for managerial positions. While more objectivity/uniformity in the process will certainly not insure that Wal-Mart will not get sued, they are more likely to successfully defend their decisions if more valid and objective systems were used. Remember the Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank and Trust (487 U.S. 977 (1988). (See Chapter 3 discussion) Source: Jimmy Oh of Littler Mendelson. CHAPTER 6 - CRITICAL THINKING APPLICATIONS Critical Thinking Application 6-A What Privacy Do We Have in the Workplace? Mary E. Wilson Should the company be allowed to ask such questions? Think of all issues that you considered in taking a position or, if you aren’t sure what your position is, what additional information do you need? To increase the probability of legal defensibility the questions should be job related (if adverse impact is established). The Company can also defend its use of the test by showing that emotional stability is an essential fucntion for the job and that this test has a long history of measuring emotional stability. If the test is a valid predictor of emotional stability and emotional stability is “essential” to do the job, then is the company free to use the test? This was an actual case in California. Target settled out of court mainly to avoid adverse publicity but with consideration of the right to privacy issue the plaintiff raised. The plaintiff declared the job was not high-risk, one that allowed greater invasion of privacy because of the public interest (like a police officer or train operator). He attacked questions regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation and questioned how they could relate to his ability to perform the job. Target recounted incidents of violence involving security personnel and insisted that emotional stability is critical to the job. The answers to specific questions were never seen by anyone at Target. The test results were a numerical rating with an evaluation of the security risk of the applicant. Even with the insistence that personal privacy of the applicant was not violated the plaintiff won the right to question the use of the test. Some states have laws that prohibit political questions of any kind (e.g., California). One of the questions asked is whether this particular test is a valid predictor (accurate and reliable) of emotional stability. Since the entire test was validated as a measure of emotional stability, then the problem is not with the test itself but with specific questions. The questions that seemed to need explanation as to why they had been included in the test were: 10. I feel sure there is only one true religion. (Religious freedom is protected under law and could be a violation of Title VII). 18. I hardly ever feel pain in the back of my neck. (ADA). 19. I have no difficulty starting or holding my urine. (ADA). 21. I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex. (illegal in some states). 23. I’ve often wished I were a girl (or if you are a girl) I’ve never been sorry that I’m a girl. (Could be considered illegal under Title VII - the interpretation the answer being scored the same for males and females may present a built in sex-bias in the test); could be a violation of state laws. 24.-26 Same as #10. How would the company prove the job relatedness of such a test? If the test was found valid in predicting emotional stability and performance on the job, (without Title VII or ADA violations) then Target should not have settled out of court. However, if the validity of the test was not compromised by dropping the questions in contention, then it is preferred that they be eliminated. When must the company prove the job relatedness of the test? A company should only be using a test if it is job related to start with. Typically an organization will need to prove job relatedness of a test in a discrimination court case. In your home state, can a company use political information to make decisions about people? For federal employees, the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. section 2301, prohibits the consideration of political affiliation in hiring and other employment decisions for most career civil service employees Some states have laws that prohibit political questions of any kind, for example California and discrimination based on political affiliation such as District of Columbia and Minnesota. Critical Thinking Application 6-B The Measurement of Personality Traits * Contributed by Kathleen Bernardin Research supports the proposition that stable personality characteristics are related to not only success in particular occupations but also job and life satisfaction. The purpose of this exercise is to provide a profile of your personality based on valid measures of personality. As discussed in Chapter 6, the “Big Five” factor structure has gained widespread acceptance by personality researchers and has greatly influenced the research into individual differences. There is also strong evidence that personality measures have utility in providing vocational and career guidance. It is clear that certain Big Five factors and their combinations are correlated with career choice, success, and satisfaction. More recent research supports the validity of core self-evaluations and Emotional Intelligence. Part B pertains to the Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES). Part A. The Five-Factor Model of Personality Discussion Questions for Part A: 1. What does research say about the use of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) for predicting success as a manager? Research involving the FFM and managerial performance shows that Conscientiousness (.25), Extraversion (.21), and Emotional Stability (.24) are useful predictors of managerial success and that scores on these three factors should be used to select managers. (p. 189) 2. What does research say about the use of the Five-Factor Model for predicting success in sales? Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability have useful predictive validity across all jobs (including sales) but that Conscientiousness had the highest validity Extraversion also has useful predictive validity More extraverted workers are more effective in jobs with a strong social component, such as sales and management. (p.189) There is also evidence that underlying narrow traits of Extraversion might help enhance prediction for certain criterion measures for sales jobs. However, the degree to which the subfactors contribute to prediction depends on the particular performance criterion and the particular occupation under study. (p.189) 3. How does the validity of personality tests compare to the validity of general mental (or cognitive) ability tests? Explain this in correlational terms. Figure 6-2 GMA validity=.51; Conscientiousness=.31. No personality test has a validity that approaches the validity of GMA. 4. Doesn’t faking on tests like the one you took completely undermine the usefulness of such tests for actual personnel selection? Wouldn’t the “fakers” get the job and those who answered honestly not be hired (or promoted)? Justify your answer with research. There is no question that applicant faking on most noncognitive measures occurs, but what is not clear is the extent to which faking reduces the validity of personality tests. Most researchers believe that the decrease in the predictive validity of personality measures due to faking is small. Faking is apparently more problematic for self report personality inventories (e.g., NEO Inventory) than for some alternative methods of assessing personality (i.e., structured interviews and assessment centers) (p. 189) 5. Are there any other methods besides self-report inventories that would provide for an assessment of personality traits that might improve the validity in the assessment of these traits? Projective techniques (i.e., MSCS, TAT) have shown some but limited validity. Superior approach would be “high valid” interview. While situational interviews are valid, the behavioral interviewing approach where candidates describe actual experiences or accomplishments with important job-related situations has been shown to be reliably more valid, particularly when reported achievements or accomplishments are verified or validated. So, a “high validity” interview should be structured with behavioral questions derived from a job analysis and involving more than one trained interviewer using a structured interview rating form. If this cannot be done, the use of three and preferably more independent interviewers will probably get you comparable validity to the “high validity” just described. Interview data should not be overemphasized but appropriately weighed with other valid information. When done as recommended, interviews can contribute to the prediction of job performance over and above tests of cognitive abilities and other personal characteristics and accomplishments. 6. What is incremental validity? Does this term apply to the assessment of personality traits? Research indicates that a combination of cognitive and motivational or personality tests may lead to a more comprehensive assessment of an individual and higher validity than any method by itself. Motivational or personality tests or assessments through interviews add what is known as incremental validity in the prediction of job performance. In general, GMA or cognitive ability and job knowledge tests are valid but additional (and valid) tools can add validity to the prediction and have the potential to reduce adverse impact. One recent study in retail showed the use of a personality test and an interview provided incremental validity to the strong validity of a GMA and reduced the level of adverse impact for the selection of managerial trainees and in the prediction of subsequent job performance. Recent research also suggests that we might do a better job predicting performance with more narrowly defined traits or subfactors that define a broader trait such as one from the FFM. A meta-analysis found that narrow traits underlying the Conscientiousness (C) factor from the FFM provided incremental predictive validity above and beyond the global Conscientiousness measure. Thus, the subfactors of C (achievement, dependability, order, cautiousness) helped improve the prediction of job performance. There is also evidence that underlying narrow traits of Extraversion might help enhance prediction for certain criterion measures for sales jobs. However, the degree to which the subfactors contribute to prediction depends on the particular performance criterion and the particular occupation under study. For example, in the meta-analyses potency was a more valid predictor of overall job proficiency, sales effectiveness, and irresponsible work behavior, while affiliation was a stronger predictor of technical proficiency. Part B. The Core Self-Evaluations Scale Discussion Questions for Part B: 1. What does research say about the relationship between the FFM and the Core-Self Evaluations Scale? The core self-evaluation is a basic assessment of one’s capability and potential. There is some research that investigated the extent to which these new measures add predictive value (or incremental validity) beyond the Big Five or other selection tools. In general, this research indicates useful incremental validity for these measures beyond the Big Five and other selection models or tools. For example, research with a new instrument that purports to measure (CSE) shows scores on the scale are correlated with job performance and that CSE has incremental validity over the five-factor model. 2. If you were going to use a self-report inventory to select sales personnel, would you use a Big-Five measure, the CSES, neither, or both? Explain your answer and cite any relevant research. There is stronger evidence supporting the use of the FFM. Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability have useful predictive validity across all jobs (including sales) but that Conscientiousness had the highest validity Extraversion also has useful predictive validity More extraverted workers are more effective in jobs with a strong social component, such as sales and management. (p.189) Limited research (not involving sales jobs) indicates useful incremental validity for the CSES beyond the Big Five. Judge, T. & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one's advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 92, 1212-1227. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., and Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self- evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. CHAPTER 7 - CRITICAL THINKING APPLICATIONS Critical Thinking Application 7-A Should We Measure Competencies in Performance Appraisal? When is it appropriate to measure competencies? Describe an appraisal system in which the purposes for the appraisal system were accomplished when the system called for assessments of personal competencies as opposed to a record of performance outcomes. The latest trend in performance appraisal is evaluating the extent to which ratees possess certain "competencies." These competencies resemble the old traits that have been condemned in a plethora of articles on appraisal (see Parry, 1996). As one illustration, the managerial competencies used by the American Management Association include self-confidence, positive regard, self-control, spontaneity, stamina, and adaptability. The two views can be reconciled by distinguishing between the measurement of performance and the measurement of correlates (or predictors) of performance in the form of competencies, skills or traits (Hagan et al., in press). Competencies may be a useful component in a program of personal development or as a tool of assessment to determine suitability for another job or assignment. However, assessments of competencies should be confused with the measurement of performance (i.e., a record of outcomes). Performance Management systems should focus on a record of outcomes and not the skills, traits, competencies, knowledge or abilities of the performers. While the measurement of such competencies could be useful as diagnostic feedback for performers and as an assessment tool to determine potentiality for another position, a distinction should be made between the measurement of these competencies and the measurement of performance in terms of quantity, quality, timeliness, cost, need for supervision or interpersonal impact. PM systems should focus on the record of outcomes that the person (or persons) actually achieved on the job. There is nothing wrong with assessing what the person possesses by way of any of these areas; we're just not measuring performance. We can assess the extent to which a person possesses certain technical skills through ratings by those familiar with a person's skills (although it would probably be better to use some form of test). It is the manifestation of those skills on the job in the form of outcomes that constitutes performance. We can assess Miami Heat center Shaquille O'Neil's psychomotor skills, his hand size, his attitude (foul shooting is for sissies), his motion, all of which may be predictors, correlates or diagnostics of his performance as a foul shooter. But his actual foul shooting in 2006 was 48% and that is the record of his performance on this element of the game. Stark, Luther and Valvano (1996) describe high levels of disagreement among managers at Jaguar Cars when the managers received low ratings on a competency they label "integrity." While Jaguar had developed behavioral definitions of "integrity," the overall rating on "integrity" was the major source of the disagreement. Perhaps an elimination of such "competency" labels would help focus the managers' attention on actual behavior and the outcomes that result from the behaviors. Office Depot evaluates its store managers on their "personal maturity." Store managers often disagree with ratings indicating that they need work on their "personal maturity." Managers had far less difficulty understanding a rating reflecting "loses temper in disagreements with associates" almost all the time. Competency assessments make sense as “predictors” of future performance. Recent research (Hagan et al., in press) has shown that 360-degree competency assessments where customer data are included showed strong validity (.50) in the prediction of assessment center performance. The 360-degree assessments also demonstrated incremental validity over managerial ratings alone in the prediction of assessment center criteria. Customer (mystery shopper) assessments were also significantly correlated with the assessment center criteria and exhibited incremental validity beyond supervisory assessments. References Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S., & Villanova, P. (1998). Effective performance management: A focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints. In J. W. Smither (Ed.). Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 3-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bernardin, H. J., Kane, J.S., Spina, J., Johnson, D. & Ross, S. (1995). Performance appraisal design, development and implementation. In G. Ferris, S. D. Rosen & D. T. Barnum (Eds.). Handbook of Human Resource Management. London: Blackwell Press pp. 462-493. Hagan, C. M., Konopaske, R. Bernardin, H.J. and Tyler, C. L. (2006). Predicting Assessment Center Performance with 360-degree, Top-down, and Customer-based Competency Assessments. Human Resource Management, 45, 367-390. Parry, S. B. (1996). The quest for competencies. Training. July, 48-53. Stark, M.J., Luther, W., & Valvano, S. (1996). Jaguar cars drives toward competency-based pay. Compensation & Benefits Review, November/December, 34-39. Critical Thinking Application 7-B The Role of Mystery Shoppers in Performance Appraisal Pick a job in which “mystery shoppers” might provide helpful and unique data. Describe how you would develop the system and incorporate data from this system into the performance-appraisal system. Some companies now tie PM criteria to the results of evaluations from so-called professional "customers" or "mystery shoppers." The retail industry has made noteworthy efforts in soliciting customer feedback through its use of mystery shopping. Typically, this involves contracting with an organization to provide "anonymous" individuals who periodically shop the store, evaluating and reporting about the experience from a customer's viewpoint. Mystery shoppers usually review a predetermined menu of variables for each store they shop, based on criteria established by the retail organization. At the Limited and the GAP, for example, mystery shoppers follow a script in order to test the extent to which store employees adhere to their training regarding customer interactions. The use of mystery shopping has become so popular that, in 1994, one contractor reported a professional shopping staff of 8,800 and a business that was growing at the rate of 50% per year (Helliker, 1994). Other organizations, including Burger King, Neiman Marcus, Hyatt Hotels, Hertz Auto Rentals, Barney's New York, Office Depot and Revco Drug Stores have had extensive experience using mystery shoppers to obtain customer-based information. One corporate example of linking PM criteria to mystery shopper data for managers is Office Depot. Their mystery shopping data is converted into a Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI), which also includes customer complaints. The CSI is then compiled and reported to each store manager once a month. The data, aggregated across the year, becomes a key determinant of each manager's annual appraisal, bonus, base salary increase and objectives for the next appraisal cycle. There is little research on the validity and reliability of mystery shopping, nor has the effect of mystery shopping on business performance been rigorously examined. The ability of mystery shopping to materially influence organizational effectiveness will be directly tied to the degree to which key customer requirements- which are predictive of actual purchase behavior- are identified. These customer requirements are then translated into mystery shopping criteria, and then gathered with a high level of precision. Bolton and Drew (1994) express concern that criteria full of purely objective efficiency data are easiest to identify and contract out, so mystery shoppers are focusing most often on issues such as determining the length of time that it takes an associate to approach them, or how long they await final service delivery, or the number of times the telephone rings before it is answered, or the number of different individuals that become involved when a customer request strays from the norm. These measures are effective customer measures only when they capture information that real customers value highly. In other words, if an organization's source of competitive advantage is price, or convenience, or uniqueness of service features, or value in relation to competitors, then the above efficiency measures may create an inaccurate, or a "mixed," signal to employees about the performance efforts that are really valued. A recent study (Hagan et al., in press) in retail found that mystery shopper assessments were significantly correlated with the assessment center criteria and exhibited incremental validity beyond supervisory assessments. Also, could a university use “mystery shoppers?” If you think it could, should it and what would the “shoppers” look for? Given the availability students as a source of evaluation that, some would argue, are theoretical "customers," the use of mystery shoppers is probably unnecessary. Data from the student "customers," combined with peer evaluation should provide the most important information about faculty teaching. Where "mystery shoppers" could be used and could provide nonredundant information is in the immense support activities of a university (i.e., all of those functions not directly tied to teaching and research). Mystery "shoppers" could evaluate performance related to class registration, student advising, career counseling, and student loans. The "shoppers" would look for the extent to which the university personnel were accomplishing their objectives or prescribing with required behavior. References Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S., & Villanova, P. (1998). Effective performance management: A focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints. In J. W. Smither (Ed.). Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 3-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolton, R.N. & Drew, J.H. (1994). Linking customer satisfaction to service operations and outcomes. In R.T. Rust & R.L. Oliver (eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 173-200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hagan, C. M., & Bernardin. H. J. (2003). Customer feedback as a critical performance dimension: Review and exploratory examination. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.). New directions in human resource management (pp. 1-27). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Hagan, C. M., Konopaske, R. Bernardin, H.J. and Tyler, C. L. (2006). Predicting Assessment Center Performance with 360-degree, Top-down, and Customer-based Competency Assessments. Human Resource Management. 45, 357-390. Helliker, K. (1994, Nov. 30). Smile: That cranky shopper may be a store spy. The Wall Street Journal, B1. Moriarty, H., McLeod, D., & Dowell, A. (2003). Mystery shopping in health service evaluation. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 942-946. Critical Thinking Application 7-C Allegations of Age and Race Discrimination Against Ford Motor Company How would you test the theories of discrimination in these complaints? A yardstick recommended by the EEOC and adopted in numerous cases for determining disparate or adverse impact is the “four-fifths” rule. This means that a selection rate (number selected/number applied) for a protected group cannot be less than four-fifths or 80 percent of the rate for the group with the highest selection rate. A superior statistic used in numerous cases is the Fisher’s Exact Test. This test can establish a relationship between two categorical variables and two levels. Play the role of consultant to Ford and write a one-page memo recommending and justifying the data and documentation that should be analyzed. Your memo should also include an evaluation of the forced distribution rating system and refer to research in its effects. The first analysis that should be done is whether there is a clear violation of the four-fifths rule for race or age in the termination of the C managers. If there is a violation of the 80% rule, then the plaintiffs could claim prima facie evidence of discrimination (at least under Title VII). What is your opinion as to whether the plaintiffs in the ADEA (age) case can use a “disparate impact” theory to define prima facie discrimination. Provide an example of how statistics could be used to show ‘prima facie’ discrimination in decision related to retention or terminations. Until recently, disparate impact theory was not allowed in most Circuit Courts for ADEA cases; however, this changed in Smith v. Jackson when the Supreme Court ruled that ‘disparate impact’ theory could be used in ADEA cases. ADEA plaintiffs can now use the four-fifth’s rule to establish a prima facie case. This is expected to increase litigation through out the country. For example, Ford should have evaluated the PM program to be sure the 4/5th rule was not violated: C Employees, this group should be evaluated to ensure it does not violate the 4/5ths rule. For example, this group has 60 non-protected workers, the protected workers should be no more than 48 workers to prevent the establishment of a prima facie case of age discrimination. Who would have the burden of proof if such evidence was presented? The defendant must either develop an argument that the performance appraisal did not discriminate the employees based on age or race. Since the plaintiff will follow this line, a study is needed which explores the use of alternative methods of performance appraisal that are relate to actual job performance and are as valid or more valid, but which do not result in as much (if any) adverse impact. Also relevant is appraised data from the Ford system prior to implementation of forced distribution system. A study by Lawler (2003) found that companies using forced distribution found that they reported superior differentiation among employees. However they also reported lower evaluation of the system compared to other systems. Lawler, E. E. (2003). Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 396-404. Furthermore, in 2008 in Meacham v. Atomic Power the Supreme Court ruled that the burden is on the employer to show that action against a workers stems from ‘reasonable factors other than age.’ Ford used the system to retain the diversity within its managers that their diversity program had helped create. Significant differences in appraisals as a function of race or age when the appraisal system/form changes would be very difficult to defend. Ford settled the Title VII and ADEA cases in 2002. There have been numerous lawsuits involving forced distribution rating systems. Abelson, R. (2001, March 19). Companies turn to grades, and employees go to court. New York Times on-line Critical Thinking Application 7-D Performance Appraisal Characteristics Questionnaire The purpose of this exercise is to introduce the student to a probabilistic approach for assessing the possible legal implications for an organization that could be involved in a lawsuit concerning the organization’s performance appraisal system. Students will describe the characteristics of a particular appraisal system and the resultant ratings from this system and their responses will then be scored in terms of the probability that the organization can prevail in a lawsuit involving the appraisal system. The scoring key is derived from research on appraisal and EEO law (e.g., Title VII, ADEA, Equal Pay Act) and unlawful termination lawsuits. Directions: Think of a work situation in which your organization uses performance appraisal as a basis for any type of personnel decision (e.g., promotions, reductions-in-force, transfers, lay-offs, pay, terminations). Select a situation with which you are very familiar or ask an acquaintance to answer the questions. Respond to each of the following items in this context. Select unsure if you do not understand a question or do not know the answer. The 15 appraisal characteristics described in this questionnaire represent characteristics that have been shown to be related to the outcomes of court cases. This list is presented in terms of the ability of each characteristic to predict a favorable outcome for management: A perfect score on this instrument is a NO to #1 and YES responses to items 2-15. This "perfect" score means management would be more likely to prevail in a legal challenge to the personnel decisions that derived from the performance appraisals. However, the 15 items are presented in their approximate order of predictive importance. Thus, a response of YES to #1 and a NO response to item #2 while the remaining items are answered YES would be problematic for management. Characteristics 1 and 2 are thus more important predictors of the outcomes of cases than those characteristics described in Items 3-15. Remember, while all 15 items have been shown to be related to case outcomes, the items are in their approximate order of importance. So while a higher score is generally better, take special note of the answers to items presented earlier. The instrument can also be used as a diagnostic to determine what changes should be made to the PA system of an organization. A NO response to Item #1 (Does your organization violate the 80% rule in the decisions from the performance appraisal data?) is the best predictor of positive outcomes for the organization (i.e., the defendant is more likely to win the lawsuit). A YES response to this item could constitute the statistical basis of a claim of "disparate impact" discrimination, a theory that can used in Title VII cases involving allegations of discrimination against women, minorities or other protected classes and, claims of age discrimination. Did your organization... 1. Violate the 80% rule in the decisions from the performance appraisal data? A NO response is the single best predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. A YES response may constitute prima facie evidence of disparate impact discrimination. 2. Use procedures for appraisal and the resultant personnel decisions that do not differ as a function of the race, sex, national origin, religion, or age of those affected by such decisions? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. A NO response may be an indication of "disparate treatment" discrimination. 3. Use objective or countable (nonrated) performance data? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 4. Have a formal system of review or appeal for situations in which the rated individual disagrees with a rating? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 5. Use more than one independent evaluator of performance? You responded YES to this question. A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 6. Use a formal, standardized system for the personnel decision? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 7. Make certain evaluators have had ample opportunity to observe rate performance (if rating must be made)? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 8. Avoid ratings on traits such as dependability, drive, aptitude, attitude or initiative? You responded YES to this question. A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 9. Validate the performance appraisal data with other data? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 10. Communicate specific performance standards to employees? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 11. Provide written instructions on how to complete the performance evaluations? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 12. Evaluate employees on specific work dimensions rather than a single overall or global measure? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 13. Require documentation for extreme ratings (e.g., critical incidents)? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 14. Provide employees with an opportunity to review their appraisals? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. 15. Train personnel decision makers on laws regarding discrimination? A YES response is an important predictor of a favorable outcome for the organization. The scoring key was derived from a study conducted by John Bernardin where labor attorneys were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed each performance appraisal characteristic or performance appraisal result played a role in the resolution of the case. Discussion Questions: 1. Prepare an example of an “80 percent rule” violation showing prima facie evidence of “disparate impact” against older workers. Use any type of personnel decision (e.g., terminations/retentions, promotions) that would involve performance appraisal data. The easiest illustration for understanding is to focus on retention rather then termination. An 80% rule violation would mean that the rate of employees 40 (and over) is less than 80% of the rate of similarly situated employees under 40. This type of analysis could be done in many ways and could focus on race or gender or employees 55 and older (versus those under 40). Another approach would be to examine performance appraisal results as a function of the rated person’s race, age or gender. 2. Should a forced-distribution system be installed to eliminate problems with personnel decisions? Explain your answer based on research. Research on forced distribution is not favorable (Lawler, 2003). Enron had a GE-like system in place when the company collapsed and Microsoft dropped this approach in 2008. Companies using forced distribution do find improved variability among ratees, a primary purpose of the approach, but Lawler (2003) reported a lower overall evaluation of the appraisal system compared to other approaches. Supervisors and managers are often offended that no matter how effective they are as managers they must comply with the required forced distribution. Lawler, E. E. (2003). Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 396-404. 3. Assuming the company has violated the “80 percent rule” in its decision making, what should the company do next? A careful look at the answers to Questions 2-15 is required in the context of the appraisal system that resulted in the 80% rule violation. The more “NO” responsible to items 2-15, especially items 2-8, the greater the likelihood that the organization would not prevail in court or in arbitration. If a company has violated the "80 percent rule" in its decision-making, which refers to a statistical guideline often used in adverse impact analysis to assess potential discrimination in employment practices, the company should take the following steps: 1. Investigate the Violation: Conduct a thorough review of the decision-making process to identify where and how the violation occurred. This involves examining the selection criteria, evaluation methods, and demographic data of affected individuals. 2. Address Bias or Discrimination: If the violation indicates bias or discrimination, take immediate corrective action. This may involve reevaluating the selection criteria, providing additional training to decision-makers on fair and unbiased practices, or implementing changes to the decision-making process to mitigate future risks. 3. Mitigate Adverse Impact: Implement strategies to mitigate any adverse impact caused by the violation. This may include revising selection procedures, expanding recruitment efforts to attract a more diverse candidate pool, or implementing alternative selection methods that reduce the likelihood of bias. 4. Communicate Transparently: Be transparent with employees and stakeholders about the violation and the steps being taken to address it. Open communication demonstrates the company's commitment to fairness and accountability in its employment practices. 5. Monitor and Evaluate: Continuously monitor the effectiveness of corrective measures and evaluate the impact on decision-making processes. Regularly review demographic data and conduct statistical analyses to ensure compliance with equal employment opportunity laws and regulations. 6. Seek Expert Guidance: If necessary, seek guidance from legal experts or consultants specializing in equal employment opportunity and diversity initiatives. They can provide valuable insights and support in developing effective strategies for addressing violations and promoting a fair and inclusive work environment. By taking proactive steps to address violations of the "80 percent rule" and promoting fair and unbiased decision-making practices, companies can uphold their commitment to equal employment opportunity and mitigate the risk of discrimination in the workplace. Solution Manual for Human Resource Management John H. Bernardin, Joyce E. A. Russell 9780078029165, 9780071326186

Document Details

Related Documents

person
Ethan Williams View profile
Close

Send listing report

highlight_off

You already reported this listing

The report is private and won't be shared with the owner

rotate_right
Close
rotate_right
Close

Send Message

image
Close

My favorites

image
Close

Application Form

image
Notifications visibility rotate_right Clear all Close close
image
image
arrow_left
arrow_right